Multi-Criteria System’s Design Methodology for Selecting Open Pits Dump Trucks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- A novel universal system of criteria for selecting a dump truck model for open pit conditions. The two-level system of criteria is a ranked and grouped list of all criteria known today.
- (2)
- The methodology of development and adjustment of such a system is based on the use of multi-criteria decision-making method FUCOM (Full Consistency Method). The peculiarity of the methodology is the evaluation of the degree of importance of different sets of criteria by groups of experts competent in different fields.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Factors for Selecting a Dump Truck Model
2.2. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods
3. Models and Methods
3.1. Methodology of Forming a System of Criteria for Dump Tracks Selecting Model
3.2. FUCOM Method for Calculating Criterion Weights
- -
- Minimum number of pairwise comparisons of criteria equal to (n − 1), compared to AHP (n(n − 1)/2), and to BWM (2n − 3).
- -
- Simple algorithm is used for the prioritization of criteria by decision makers.
- -
- High reliability of the result.
- -
- Allows obtaining optimal weighting factors with the possibility of validating them, showing the consistency of the results.
- (a)
- The ratio of the weighting coefficients is equivalent to the comparative importance among the criteria considered , as determined in Step 2, more specifically, that the following condition is met:
- (b)
- The condition of mathematical transitivity, i.e., that should be met by the final values of the weighting coefficients. Since and , then . So, the final values of the weighting coefficients of the evaluation criteria should fulfill the second condition, which is as follows:
4. Results
4.1. Data Collection and Formation of a Universal System of Dump Truck Selection Criteria
- A total of 71 different criteria were identified.
- Significant variation in the number of criteria used by different authors. The minimum number of criteria is 2, and the maximum is 26.
- Differences in the understanding of the criteria by different authors.
- The predominance of criteria that we previously attributed to the group of economic criteria. 58% of the authors consider only capital and operating expenses.
- 25% of the total number of criteria are unique; that is, they are mentioned in only one study.
- 51% of the total number of criteria used in no more than three studies. We characterized such criteria as rarely used.
- 19% of the total number of criteria is used most frequently, that is, in ten or more studies.
- Some researchers use the criteria to select not only dump trucks but also other equipment, for example, when justifying excavator-and-dump truck complex options.
- A different number of levels of the criteria hierarchy—from 1 to 2. In the latter case, the level of criteria and subcriteria is distinguished.
- A variety of ways and systems for grouping criteria are used.
- 57% of the criteria are quantitative; for the remaining criteria, qualitative assessments are used.
- We have not identified studies that systematically use the entire set of known criteria for selecting dump trucks.
4.2. Results of Expert Evaluation of Criteria Groups and Criteria for Selection of Dump Trucks
4.3. Results of Ranking the Criteria Groups and Criteria of the FUCOM Method
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Level | Description | Choosing Level |
---|---|---|
1 | Strategic: company owner; company president; key executives; general, commercial, and technical directors; etc. | |
2 | Design: heads and specialists of the design and engineering department; chief engineers; miners; geologists; mine surveyors; heads and specialists of planning and economic departments; heads of labor protection and environmental departments; etc. | |
3 | Optimization: mechanics, power engineers, head of transport departments, shift supervisors, etc. |
Appendix B. Instruction for Experts
Appendix C
Criteria Groups | First Place | Second Place | Third Place | Fourth Place |
---|---|---|---|---|
Write the designation of only one group of criteria, C1, C2, C3, or C4 * | ||||
Scores from 1 to 9 | 1 |
References
- Evseev, V.N.; Varenichev, A.A. Auto dump quarries. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. 2017, 8, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudenko, Y.F.; Opanasenko, P.I.; Mishin, Y.M.; Isajchenkov, A.B.; Anistratov, K.Y. Research of laws of change of parameters of work of career dumpers during term of their operation. Ugol 2008, 7, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Kuznetsov, D.V.; Odaev, D.G.; Linkov, Y.E. Peculiarities of technological motor transport selection used for deep north open pits operation. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2017, 5, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
- Kuznetsov, D.V.; Kosolapov, A.I. Justification criteria for open pit mine depth and mining/haulage machinery parameters. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 262, 12038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paricheh, M.; Osanloo, M. Determination of the optimum in-pit crusher location in open-pit mining under production and operating cost uncertainties. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Applications in the Mineral Industries (CAMI 2916), Istanbul, Turkey, 5–7 October 2016; AGRO ARGE Danışmanlık San. ve Tic. A.Ş.: Istanbul, Turkey, 2016. ISBN 978-605-66638-1-9. [Google Scholar]
- Yakovlev, V.L.; Karmaev, G.D.; Bersenev, V.A.; Glebov, A.V.; Semenkin, A.V.; Sumina, I.G. Efficiency of cyclical-and-continuous method in open pit mining. J. Min. Sci. 2016, 52, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burchett, T.; Young, B. Optimizing an engineered slope conveyor system; An OEM/operator collaboration. Min. Eng. 2013, 65, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, T.; Hennig, A.; Lottermoser, B.G. The need for sustainable technology diffusion in mining: Achieving the use of belt conveyor systems in the German hard-rock quarrying industry. J. Sustain. Min. 2017, 16, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velikanov, V.S.; Dyorina, N.V.; Kocherzhinskaya, Y.; Mamay, N.V.; Logunova, T.V. The brachistochrone problem applied in the study on a conveyance descending trajectory in open pit mining. Vestn. Nosov Magnitogorsk State Tech. Univ. 2022, 20, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, E.; Kruse, W. Mobile Crushing and Conveying in Quarries Cheaper Production! Available online: https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mobile-crushing.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2023).
- Kolga, A.; Rakhmangulov, A.; Osintsev, N.; Sładkowski, A.; Stolpovskikh, I. Robotic transport complex of automotive vehicles for handling of rock mass at the process of open cast mining. Transp. Probl. 2015, 10, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuleshov, A.A. Ways to improve the quality of operation of quarry road transport systems in modern conditions. J. Min. Inst. 2004, 157, 181–185. [Google Scholar]
- Yakovlev, V.L.; Kornilkov, S.V. Technological problems and features of conducting mining operations in deep open pits. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2015, S56, 54–66. [Google Scholar]
- Anistratov, K.; Borshch-Komponiets, L.V. Research into the performance of mine dump trucks for the substantiation of the fleet structure and performance standards. Russ. Min. Ind. 2011, 4, 38–49. [Google Scholar]
- Khazin, M.; Tarasov, A. Ecological and economic evaluation of quarry trolley trucks. Perm. J. Pet. Min. Eng. 2018, 17, 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Gu, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, F.; Zhang, Z. Ultimate pit optimization with environmental problem for open-pit coal mine. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 173, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golik, V.I.; Polovneva, S.I.; Turluyev, R.R. Processing and use of waste from the mining industry. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1021, 12004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argimbaev, K.R. Investigations of the deposit geological structure impact on the technogenic accident risk at the mining plant. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2018, 18, 1713–1717. [Google Scholar]
- Rakhmangulov, A.; Burmistrov, K.; Osintsev, N. Selection of open-pit mining and technical system’s sustainable development strategies based on MCDM. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rakhmangulov, A.; Burmistrov, K.; Osintsev, N. Sustainable open pit mining and technical systems: Concept, principles, and indicators. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Gu, Q.; Li, X.; Xiong, N. Comprehensive overview: Fleet management drives green and climate-smart open pit mine. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 113942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lashgari, A.; Yazdani–Chamzini, A.; Fouladgar, M.M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Shafiee, S.; Abbate, N. Equipment selection using fuzzy multi criteria decision making model: Key study of Gole Gohar Iron Min. Eng. Econ. 2012, 23, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panachev, I.; Shirokolobov, G.; Kuznetsov, I.; Shirokolobova, A. Justification of efficiency of heavy dump trucks effectiveness in open pit mines according to operating life criterion of the back axle. In Proceedings of the 8th Russian-Chinese Symposium “Coal in the 21st Century: Mining, Processing, Safety”, Kemerovo, Russia, 10 January–12 October 2016; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2016; pp. 144–148, ISBN 978-94-6252-233-6. [Google Scholar]
- 8 Q&A You Need to Know about Dump Truck. Available online: https://www.miningpedia.cn/mining/8-Q-A-You-Need-to-Know-about-Dump-Truck.html#section7 (accessed on 20 April 2023).
- 3 Factors to Consider When Choosing Dump Trucks for Your Project. Available online: https://connect2local.com/l/48162/c/163549/3-factors-to-consider-when-choosing-dump-trucks-for-your-project (accessed on 20 April 2023).
- Kumar, D.; Yadav, P.K.; Gupta, S. Measurement and analysis of performance of mining dump trucks. Int. J. Veh. Perform. 2020, 6, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sisin, A.G.; Glebov, A.V. Evaluation of Technical and Economic Level and Open Pit Dump Track Rational Model Selection; Ural Department of Russian Academy of Sciences: Ekaterinburg, Russia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Koptev, V. Justification of the choice of effective model of career dump. Mod. Tech. Technol. 2014, 5, 3850. [Google Scholar]
- Andreeva, L.I.; Ushakov, Y.Y. Research of operational reliability of quarry dump trucks. News Ural State Min. Univ. 2016, 43, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bochkarev, Y.S.; Vikulov, M.A.; Ishkov, A.M.; Sedalishchev, I.I. Research of the exploitation of dump trucks BELAZ-7540 in conditions of the North. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2015, 7, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, P.; Mehlawat, M.K.; Aggarwal, U.; Charles, V. An integrated AHP-DEA multi-objective optimization model for sustainable transportation in mining industry. Resour. Policy 2021, 71, 101180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khazin, M.L.; Shtykov, S.O. Electric mining trucks. Vestn. Nosov Magnitogorsk State Tech. Univ. 2018, 16, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Despodov, Z.; Mirakovski, D.; Mijalkovski, S. Methodology for selection of the most convenient ore transportation system in regard to the environmental protection. Int. J. Transp. Logist. 2013, 13, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Owusu-Mensah, F.; Musingwini, C. Evaluation of ore transport options from Kwesi Mensah Shaft to the mill at the Obuasi mine. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2011, 25, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdani-Chamzini, A. An integrated fuzzy multi criteria group decision making model for handling equipment selection. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2014, 20, 660–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PTV Vissim. Available online: https://ptv-vision.ru/ (accessed on 10 October 2023).
- Rakishev, B.R.; Begalinov, A.B.; Lukin, I.V. Determination of limits of using of wheeled transport different types at open pits. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2002, 10, 150–152. [Google Scholar]
- Blagojevic, A.; Veskovic, S.; Kasalica, S.; Gojic, A.; Allamani, A. The application of the fuzzy AHP and DEA for measuring the efficiency of freight transport railway undertakings. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 2020, 3, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liachovičius, E.; Skrickij, V.; Podviezko, A. MCDM Evaluation of Asset-Based Road Freight Transport Companies Using Key Drivers That Influence the Enterprise Value. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anysz, H.; Nicał, A.; Stević, Ž.; Grzegorzewski, M.; Sikora, K. Pareto optimal decisions in multi-criteria decision making explained with construction cost cases. Symmetry 2021, 13, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patyk, M.; Bodziony, P.; Krysa, Z. A multiple criteria decision making method to weight the sustainability criteria of equipment selection for surface mining. Energies 2021, 14, 3066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komljenovic, D.; Kecojevic, V. Multi-attribute selection method for mining trucks. Soc. Min. Metall. Explor. 2006, 320, 94–104. [Google Scholar]
- Bodziony, P.; Kasztelewicz, Z.; Sawicki, P. The problem of multiple criteria selection of the surface mining haul trucks. Arch. Min. Sci. 2016, 61, 223–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patyk, M.; Bodziony, P.; Przylibski, T.A.; Kasza, D. Analysis of multiple criteria selection and application of APEKS method in haul truck mining transport process. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 71, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Sousa, W.T., Jr.; Souza, M.J.F.; Cabral, I.E.; Diniz, M.E. Multi-Criteria Decision Aid methodology applied to highway truck selection at a mining company. Rem Rev. Esc. Minas 2014, 67, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malli, T.; Mizrak Ozfirat, P.; Yetkin, M.E.; Ozfirat, M.K. Truck selection with the fuzzy-WSM method in transportation systems of open pit mines. Teh. Vjesn. Tech. Gaz. 2021, 28, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yavuz, M. Equipment selection by using fuzzy TOPSIS method. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2016, 44, 42040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasvareh, M.A.; Safari, M.; Nikkhah, M. Haulage system selection for Parvadeh coal mine using multi-criteria decision making Methods. Min. Sci. 2019, 26, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samimi Namin, F.; Ghasemzadeh, H.; Aghajari, A.M. A comprehensive approach to selecting mine transportation system using AHP and FUZZY-TOPSIS. Decis. Mak. Anal. 2023, 1, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bascetin, A. The study of decision making tools for equipment selection in mining engineering operations. Gospod. Surowcami Miner. Miner. Resour. Manag. 2009, 25, 37–56. [Google Scholar]
- Samanta, B.; Sarkar, B.; Mukherjee, S.K. Selection of opencast mining equipment by a multi-criteria decision-making process. Min. Technol. 2013, 111, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebimpe, R.A.; Akande, J.; Arum, C. Mine equipment selection for Ajabanoko Iron Ore Deposit, Kogi State, Nigeria. Sci. Res. 2013, 1, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazzazi, A.A.; Osanloo, M.; Karimi, B. A new fuzzy multi criteria decision making model for open pit mines equipment selection. Asia-Pac. J. Oper. Res. 2011, 28, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bazzazi, A.A.; Osanloo, M.; Karimi, B. Optimal open pit mining equipment selection using fuzzy multiple attribute decision making approach. Arch. Min. Sci. 2009, 54, 301–320. [Google Scholar]
- Bascetin, A. A decision support system for optimal equipment selection in open pit mining: Analytical hierarchy process. J. Earth Sci. 2003, 16, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Shariati, S. Selection of material handing equipment system for surface mines by using a combination of fuzzy MCDM models. Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. 2013, 5, 1501–1511. [Google Scholar]
- Tuzkaya, G.; Gülsün, B.; Kahraman, C.; Özgen, D. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application. Expert. Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 2853–2863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patyk, M.; Bodziony, P. Application of the analytical hierarchy process to select the most appropriate mining equipment for the exploitation of secondary deposits. Energies 2022, 15, 5979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.Q.; Lin, Z.; Li, D.; Li, X.; Kozan, E.; Masoud, M. Recent research agendas in mining equipment management: A review. Mining 2022, 2, 769–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.D.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications—A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2015, 28, 516–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namin, F.S.; Ghadi, A.; Saki, F. A literature review of Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) towards mining method selection (MMS). Resour. Policy 2022, 77, 102676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia 2023, 3, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pamučar, D.; Stević, Ž.; Sremac, S. A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry 2018, 10, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stević, Ž.; Mujaković, N.; Goli, A.; Moslem, S. Selection of logistics distribution channels for final product delivery: FUCOM-MARCOS Model. J. Intell. Manag. Decis. 2023, 2, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burmistrov, K.V.; Osintsev, N.A.; Shakshakpaev, A.N. Selection of open-pit dump trucks during quarry reconstruction. Procedia Eng. 2017, 206, 1696–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayadi, H.; Hamani, N.; Kermad, L.; Benaissa, M. Novel fuzzy composite indicators for locating a logistics platform under sustainability perspectives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feizi, F.; Karbalaei-Ramezanali, A.A.; Farhadi, S. FUCOM-MOORA and FUCOM-MOOSRA: New MCDM-based knowledge-driven procedures for mineral potential mapping in greenfields. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pamucar, D.; Ecer, F.; Deveci, M. Assessment of alternative fuel vehicles for sustainable road transportation of United States using integrated fuzzy FUCOM and neutrosophic fuzzy MARCOS methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stević, Ž.; Brković, N. A Novel Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model for Evaluation of Human Resources in a Transport Company. Logistics 2020, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badi, I.; Jibril, M.L.; Bakır, M. A composite approach for site optimization of fire stations. J. Intell. Manag. Decis. 2022, 1, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stević, Ž.; Bašić, A.; Moslem, S.; Zhong, K. An integrated ABC-FUCOM model for product classification. Spectr. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2023, 1, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
- Rayan, K. Differentiation of open pit dump trucks operating conditions. Gorn. Delo 2015, 4, 66–72. [Google Scholar]
- Tarasop, P.I.; Zyryanov, I.V.; Fefelov, E.V. Differentiation of operating conditions for mining dump trucks. Russ. Min. Ind. 2016, 127, 51–53. [Google Scholar]
- Fefelov, E.V. Systematization of mining conditions for operating of run-of-bank motor transport. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2012, 7, 207–211. [Google Scholar]
- Soofastaei, A.; Aminossadati, S.M.; Kizil, M.; Knights, P. Reducing fuel consumption of haul trucks in surface mines using artificial intelligence models. In Proceedings of the 16th Coal Operators’ Conference. Coal Operators’ Conference, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10–12 February 2016; Aziz, N., Kininmonth, B., Eds.; University of Wollongong: Wollongong, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Panachev, I.A.; Kuznetsov, I.V. Analysis of the impact angle on the energy consumption of road transportation of rocks by heavy auto-tippers. Bull. Kuzbass State Tech. Univ. 2013, 100, 67–70. [Google Scholar]
- Cardu, M.; Lovera, E.; Patrucco, M. Loading and haulage in quarries: Criteria for the selection of excavator-dumper system. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Banff, AB, Canada, 31 October–3 November 2005; pp. 1594–1606. [Google Scholar]
- Lel’, Y.; Il’bul’din, D.H. Justification of the open pit depth for transition to new models of dump trucks in the process of deep open pit reworking. Min. Inf. Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2009, S6, 313–319. [Google Scholar]
- Peralta, S.; Sasmito, A.P.; Kumral, M. Reliability effect on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of mining hauling fleet towards sustainable mining. J. Sustain. Min. 2016, 15, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soltanmohammadi, H.; Aghajani Bazzazi, A.; Osanloo, M. Loading-haulage equipment selection in open pit mines based on fuzzy-TOPSIS method. Gospod. Surowcami Miner. 2008, 24, 87–102. [Google Scholar]
- Kartashov, A.; Harutyunyan, G.; Kosolapov, A.; Shkarupelov, E. Justification of the concept of creating a perspective dump truck. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 779, 12028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardy, R.J. Selection Criteria for Loading and Hauling Equipment—Open Pit Mining Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ta, C.H.; Ingolfsson, A.; Doucette, J. A linear model for surface mining haul truck allocation incorporating shovel idle probabilities. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 231, 770–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özfirat, P.M.; Özfirat, M.K.; Malli, T. Selection of coal transportation mode from the open pit mine to the thermic power plant using fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Transport 2018, 33, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glebov, A.V. Technological peculiar features in deposit opening of solid minerals while using articulated dump trucks. Sci. Tech. 2018, 17, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khazin, M.L. Robotic Equipment for Mining Operations. Vestn. Nosov Magnitogorsk State Tech. Univ. 2020, 18, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashihmin, V.E.; Furman, A.S.; Shadrin, V.N. Speedy and working modes of open pit dump trucks. Bull. Kuzbass State Tech. Univ. 2012, 92, 123–125. [Google Scholar]
- Voronov, Y.; Basmanov, S.V. Directions of technical conditions increasing for open pit dump trucks. Bull. Kuzbass State Tech. Univ. 2007, 59, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
- Glebov, A.V.; Zhuravlev, A.G. Formation of an open pit dump trucks fleet for Elga coal deposit. Min. Informational Anal. Bull. Sci. Tech. J. 2010, S4, 69–82. [Google Scholar]
- Kuznetsov, S.R.; Vasil’eva, M.A. The parameters defining power efficiency of dump trucks in opencast mine. J. Min. Inst. 2014, 209, 185–188. [Google Scholar]
- Savchenko, V.V. Development of systems for support of open-cast dump truck drivers’ fitness to work. Sci. Tech. 2006, 6, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
- Glebov, A.V. Formation of a park of dump trucks for open pit mining. Asp. Min. Miner. Sci. 2019, 3, 401–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Systems | Research Area | MCDM * | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Sustainable transportation system | The selection of sustainable vehicles in the mining industry | AHP-DEA | [31] |
Selection and assessment of mining equipment and systems comprising loading machines, haul trucks, and crushing plants | ELECTRE III | [41] | |
Transportation system | Selection of open pit dump trucks | AHP | [42] |
Selection of open pit dump trucks | ELECTRE III | [43] | |
Selection of open pit dump trucks | APEKS | [44] | |
Selection of dump trucks for transporting ore from the mine | WPM, ELECTRE I, PROMETHEE II | [45] | |
Selection of open pit dump trucks | AHP-Fuzzy WSM | [46] | |
Selection of open pit dump trucks | Fuzzy TOPSIS | [47] | |
Selection of ore transportation option | AHP | [34] | |
Selection of haulage system for coal mine | AHP-TOPSIS-VIKOR | [48] | |
Selection of mine transportation system | AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS | [49] | |
Loading-hauling systems | Selection of loading-hauling systems for open-pit mining | Fuzzy AHP | [50] |
Selection of mobile surface mining machines for excavating, transporting, and loading coal or ore | AHP | [51] | |
Selection of dump trucks, wheel loaders, crawler excavators, bulldozers, and blast hole drilling rigs | AHP-TOPSIS | [52] | |
Selection of loading-hauling equipment for open-pit mining | Fuzzy AHP | [53] | |
Selection of loading-hauling equipment for open-pit mining | Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS | [35] | |
Selection of loading-hauling systems for open-pit mining | AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS | [54] | |
Selection of loading-hauling systems for open-pit mining | AHP | [55] | |
Selection of material hauling systems for surface mine | Fuzzy AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS | [56] | |
Selection of loading-hauling equipment | Fuzzy ANP-Fuzzy PROMETHEE | [57] | |
Selection of mining equipment for the exploitation of secondary deposits | AHP | [58] | |
Selection of shovel-truck system | Various methods | [59] |
No. | Criteria | References | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[72] | [73] | [74] | [50] | [31] | [51] | [52] | [53] | [35] | [33] | [34] | [12] | [42] | [37] | [75] | [76] | [77] | [78] | [79] | [43] | [65] | [47] | [27] | [80] | [81] | [44] | [82] | [45] | [46] | [83] | [84] | [54] | [55] | [28] | [1] | [3] | [15] | [85] | [32] | [86] | [29] | [87] | [88] | [30] | [12] | [89] | [90] | [91] | [92] | [61] | ||
Technical Criteria Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Useful life | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Grade | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Fuel efficiency (fuel consumption) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Production | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Average rolling resistance | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Mobility | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Net to Tare Ratio | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Safety (Technology and safety systems) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Vibration and impact | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Comfort (ergonomics) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Ease of maintenance | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Maneuverability | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Power selection (Maximum power) | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Altitude limitation | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | Reliability | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Visibility | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Maximum torque | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18 | Minimum turning | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
19 | Payload capacity | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Manufacturer of Engine | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
21 | Gearbox | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
22 | Truck box features | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
23 | Truck suspension system | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24 | Hill Climbing Ability | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
25 | Truck Unloading Time | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
26 | Dump truck width | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Technological Criteria Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
27 | Haulage distance | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
28 | Haul road condition | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29 | Continuous of mining | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30 | Compatibility with other equipment to match the production system (compatibility with excavator) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31 | Transport berm parameters | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32 | Bench geometry | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
33 | Technology change adaptability | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34 | Fill factor | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 | Cycle time | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
36 | Rock banding capability | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
37 | Open pit depth | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Loading time | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geological Criteria Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39 | Material size | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
40 | Moisture (swell factor) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
41 | The ground condition | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 | Weather conditions | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
43 | Type and geometry of deposit | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Ore and waste density | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45 | Physical properties of mined | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
46 | Chemical properties of mined lands | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Economic Criteria Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
47 | Availability | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
48 | Capital cost | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 | Operating Cost (Material transportation unit cost) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
50 | Depreciation | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
51 | Ownership cost | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
52 | Warranty | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
53 | Risk | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
54 | Resale value | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
55 | Insurance liability | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
56 | Manufacture prestige | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Environmental Criteria Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
57 | Environment (dust, noisy, etc.) | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
58 | Utilization | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
59 | Air pollution | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60 | Nose pollution | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organizational Criteria Group | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
61 | Working stability | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
62 | Flexibility | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
63 | Support | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | Logistic time (spare parts delivery) | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65 | Back-up service (Support) | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
66 | Labor skill | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
67 | Level of technology (robotization, automatization) | + | + | + | + | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | Haul trucks usage index | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
69 | State of reserve | + | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | Number of drivers | + | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
71 | The size of machinery fleet | + |
Criteria Group, (Notation) | Criteria | Notation | Definition | Unit | Data Source * | Value Range | Target | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical, (C1) | Useful life | C1.1 | Manufacturer’s guaranteed service life of the dump truck | Years or motor hours | A | 3–7 years | max | 1 | ||
Grade | C1.2 | Maximum possible grade of open pit roads, which can be overcome by the dump truck under consideration in loaded condition | ‰ | A | 60–270‰ | max | 2 | |||
Net to Tare Ratio | C1.3 | Ratio of dump truck weight to payload capacity | Fractions | A | 0.7–0.84 | min | 2 | |||
Safety | C1.4 | Availability of active and passive safety systems for the dump truck | Score | D | max | 1 | 3 | |||
Comfort, Ergonomics | C1.5 | Dump truck driver’s workplace comfort | Score | D | max | 1 | 3 | |||
Ease of maintenance | C1.6 | Possibility to maintain the dump truck by own repair crews | Score | D | max | 3 | ||||
Dump truck controllability | C1.7 | Speed characteristics and dynamics of acceleration during dump truck driving in loaded and empty conditions | Score | D | max | 3 | ||||
Minimum turning radius | C1.8 | Correlated with the parameters of looping sections of the route in the open pit | Meters | A | 9–20 | min | 2 | |||
Payload capacity | C1.9 | Maximum load weight that can be carried by a dump truck | Tons | A | 25–450 | max | 2 | |||
Dump truck tray type | C1.10 | Dump track tray configuration and liner design | Score | A | max | 2 | ||||
Dump truck width | C1.11 | The overall width dimensions of the dump truck, which determine the required haul road width | Meters | A | Up to 9.87 | min | 2 | 3 | ||
Technological, (C2) | Match with excavator and crusher | C2.1 | Technological compatibility of dump trucks with related equipment such as excavators and crushers | m3/m3 | C | 3–7 | max | 2 | 3 | |
Haul road width | C2.2 | Width of open pit roads | meters | A, B | Up to 45 | min | 2 | |||
Payload Factor | C2.3 | The ratio of performed transportation work to the maximum possible work performed under the condition of full utilization of the dump truck capacity | Fractions | C | Up to 1 | max | 2 | |||
Open pit depth | C2.4 | Limit design depth of the pit in which the dump truck operation is envisaged | meters | B | Up to 800 | max | 1 | 2 | ||
Production rate | C2.5 | Annual capacity of the open pit for the type of rocks that are planned to be moved by the dump truck | Million tons per year | B | Up to 100 or more | max | 1 | 2 | ||
Haul Road Condition | C2.6 | Type of road surface and its condition on open pit roads | Score | D | max | 2 | 3 | |||
Required dump truck fleet | C2.7 | A dump truck fleet of a certain model to perform the required volume of work | pcs | B | Up to 100 or more | min | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Environmental, (C3) | Waste materials produced | C3.1 | The amount of waste that is generated during the operation of the dump truck, including waste oil, other fluids, tires, and the dump truck itself after decommissioning | Tons per year | C | min | 1 | 2 | ||
Air pollution | C3.2 | Volume of air pollutant emissions | m3 per year | C | min | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
Noisy | C3.3 | Noise impact generated by the operation of the dump truck | Decibels | C | min | 3 | ||||
Type and geometry of deposit | C3.4 | The configuration of the mineral deposit, which determines the shape and parameters of the pit | Score | D | max | 1 | 2 | |||
Climatic zone match | C3.5 | Climate of the open pit location zone | Score | D | max | 3 | ||||
Economic and organizational (C4) | Availability | C4.1 | Ratio of number of technically serviceable dump trucks to fleet size | Fractions | A | 0.7–1.0 | max | 2 | ||
CAPEX | C4.2 | Investments in the dump truck fleet | $ | C | min | 1 | 2 | |||
OPEX | C4.3 | Operating expenses | $ | C | min | 2 | ||||
Resale value | C4.4 | Residual value of dump truck | $ | D | max | 1 | ||||
Manufacture reputation | C4.5 | Reputation of the dump truck manufacturer in the open pit equipment market | Score | D | max | 1 | ||||
Reliability | C4.6 | Dump truck operation without unscheduled downtime, breakdowns | Score | D | max | 3 | ||||
Back-up service (Support) | C4.7 | Quality of dump truck service | Score | D | max | 3 | ||||
Labor skill | C4.8 | The company’s personnel have the skill to operate a certain dump truck model without additional training | Score | D | max | 3 | ||||
Technological level (robotization, automation) | C4.9 | Availability of automation systems or unmanned operation in a particular dump truck model | Score | D | max | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Level of Competence | Expert Position | Area of Activity (Type of Mining Enterprise) | Number of Experts | Notation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Level 1 | Director General | Mining of raw materials for the chemical industry | 1 | DM1 |
Director General | Mining of construction rocks | 1 | DM2 | |
Director | Mining of raw materials for the metallurgical industry | 1 | DM3 | |
Head of Department | Iron Ore Mining | 1 | DM4 | |
Deputy General Director | Mining of kimberlite | 1 | DM5 | |
Level 2 | Chief Geologist | Mining of raw materials for the metallurgical industry | 1 | DM6 |
Chief Surveyor | Mining of gold ore | 2 | DM7, DM8 | |
Chief Miner | Mining of raw materials for the metallurgical industry | 1 | DM9 | |
Head of Design and Engineering Department | Copper Ore Mining | 1 | DM10 | |
Chief Engineer | Mining of Construction Rocks | 1 | DM11 | |
Level 3 | Mining foreman | Gold Ore Mining | 2 | DM12, DM13 |
Chief mechanic | Iron Ore Mining | 1 | DM14 | |
Leading specialist of the technical and engineering department | Gold Ore Mining | 1 | DM15 | |
Mining Foreman | Mining of raw materials for the chemical industry | 2 | DM16, DM17 |
Criteria Group (Notation) | Criteria (Notation) |
---|---|
Technical (C1) | Useful life (C1.1) |
Safety (C1.4) | |
Comfort, Ergonomics (C1.5) | |
Technological (C2) | Open pit depth (C2.4) |
Production rate (C2.5) | |
Required dump trucks fleet (C2.7) | |
Environmental (C3) | Waste materials produced (C3.1) |
Air pollution (C3.2) | |
Type and geometry of deposit (C3.4) | |
Economic and organizational (C4) | CAPEX (C4.2) |
Resale value (C4.4) | |
Manufacture reputation (C4.5) | |
Technological level (robotization, automation) (C4.9) |
Criteria Group (Notation) | Criteria (Notation) |
---|---|
Technical (C1) | Grade (C1.2) |
Net to Tare Ratio (C1.3) | |
Minimum turning radius (C1.8) | |
Payload capacity (C1.9) | |
Dump truck tray type (C1.10) | |
Dump truck width (C1.11) | |
Technological (C2) | Match with excavator and crusher (C2.1) |
Haul road width (C2.2) | |
Payload Factor (C2.3) | |
Haul Road Condition (C2.6) | |
Required dump trucks fleet (C2.7) | |
Environmental (C3) | Waste materials produced (C3.1) |
Air pollution (C3.2) | |
Type and geometry of deposit (C3.4) | |
Economic and organizational (C4) | Availability (C4.1) |
CAPEX (C4.2) | |
OPEX (C4.3) | |
Technological level (robotization, automation) (C4.9) |
Criteria Group (Notation) | Criteria (Notation) |
---|---|
Technical (C1) | Safety (C1.4) |
Comfort, Ergonomics (C1.5) | |
Ease of maintenance (C1.6) | |
Dump truck controllability (C1.7) | |
Dump truck width (C1.11) | |
Technological (C2) | Match with excavator and crusher (C2.1) |
Haul Road Condition (C2.6) | |
Required dump trucks fleet (C2.7) | |
Environmental (C3) | Air pollution (C3.2) |
Noisy (C3.3) | |
Climatic zone match (C3.5) | |
Economic and organizational (C4) | Reliability (C4.6) |
Back-up service (Support) (C4.7) | |
Labor skill (C4.8) | |
Technological level (robotization, automation) (C4.9) |
DM1 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C1 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
DM2 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C4 | C1 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 |
DM3 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C1 | C2 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
DM4 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C4 | C1 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
DM5 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C4 | C2 | C1 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
DM6 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C3 | C1 | C2 | C4 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
DM7 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C4 | C1 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
DM8 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C1 | C2 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
DM9 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C1 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 |
DM10 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C1 | C2 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 4 | 5 | 8 |
DM11 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C1 | C2 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
DM12 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C1 | C4 | C2 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
DM13 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C1 | C2 | C4 | C3 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 3 | 7 | 9 |
DM14 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
DM15 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
DM16 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
DM17 | ||||
Criteria groups (according to rank) | C2 | C1 | C3 | C4 |
Criteria groups comparisons | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
Results of Evaluation | Criteria Groups (Notation) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical (C1) | Technological (C2) | Environmental (C3) | Economic and Organizational (C4) | ||||||||||
DM1 | |||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.4 | C1.1 | C1.5 | C2.5 | C2.4 | C2.7 | C3.4 | C3.2 | C3.1 | C4.2 | C4.9 | C4.4 | C4.5 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
DM2 | |||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.1 | C1.4 | C1.5 | C2.7 | C2.5 | C2.4 | C3.4 | C3.1 | C3.2 | C4.2 | C4.4 | C4.9 | C4.5 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
DM3 | |||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.1 | C1.4 | C1.5 | C2.5 | C2.7 | C2.4 | C3.2 | C3.1 | C3.4 | C4.2 | C4.9 | C4.5 | C4.4 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
DM4 | |||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.1 | C1.4 | C1.5 | C2.5 | C2.7 | C2.4 | C3.1 | C3.2 | C3.4 | C4.2 | C4.5 | C4.9 | C4.4 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 |
DM5 | |||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.1 | C1.4 | C1.5 | C2.7 | C2.5 | C2.4 | C3.4 | C3.2 | C3.1 | C4.4 | C4.5 | C4.9 | C4.2 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Results of Evaluation | Criteria Groups (Notation) | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical (C1) | Technological (C2) | Environmental (C3) | Economic and Organizational (C4) | |||||||||||||||
DM6 | ||||||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.9 | C1.11 | C1.2 | C1.8 | C1.10 | C1.3 | C2.1 | C2.2 | C2.7 | C2.3 | C2.6 | C3.2 | C3.1 | C3.4 | C4.3 | C4.2 | C4.1 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
DM7 | ||||||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.9 | C1.8 | C1.11 | C1.10 | C1.3 | C1.2 | C2.1 | C2.7 | C2.2 | C2.6 | C2.3 | C3.2 | C3.1 | C3.4 | C4.1 | C4.2 | C4.3 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
DM8 | ||||||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.9 | C1.11 | C1.2 | C1.8 | C1.10 | C1.3 | C2.2 | C2.1 | C2.6 | C2.3 | C2.7 | C3.1 | C3.4 | C3.2 | C4.2 | C4.3 | C4.1 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
DM9 | ||||||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.9 | C1.11 | C1.2 | C1.10 | C1.8 | C1.3 | C2.1 | C2.2 | C2.7 | C2.3 | C2.6 | C3.4 | C3.2 | C3.1 | C4.3 | C4.1 | C4.2 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
DM10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.2 | C1.8 | C1.9 | C1.11 | C1.10 | C1.3 | C2.7 | C2.6 | C2.2 | C2.1 | C2.3 | C3.4 | C3.1 | C3.2 | C4.1 | C4.9 | C4.3 | C4.2 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8 |
DM11 | ||||||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.2 | C1.11 | C1.8 | C1.9 | C1.10 | C1.3 | C2.1 | C2.5 | C2.2 | C2.4 | C2.3 | C3.4 | C3.1 | C3.2 | C4.1 | C4.3 | C4.2 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
Results of Evaluation | Criteria groups (Notation) | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical (C1) | Technological (C2) | Environmental (C3) | Economic and Organizational (C4) | ||||||||||||
DM12 | |||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.4 | C1.7 | C1.6 | C1.5 | C1.11 | C2.1 | C2.7 | C2.5 | C3.5 | C3.3 | C3.1 | C4.6 | C4.8 | C4.7 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
DM13 | |||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.7 | C1.4 | C1.5 | C1.11 | C1.5 | C2.7 | C2.1 | C2.5 | C3.5 | C3.3 | C3.1 | C4.6 | C4.8 | C4.9 | C4.7 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6 |
DM14 | |||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.4 | C1.5 | C1.7 | C1.11 | C1.6 | C2.1 | C2.7 | C2.5 | C3.5 | C3.1 | C3.3 | C4.6 | C4.8 | C4.7 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
DM15 | |||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.4 | C1.5 | C1.7 | C1.11 | C1.6 | C2.1 | C2.7 | C2.5 | C3.5 | C3.1 | C3.3 | C4.8 | C4.6 | C4.7 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
DM16 | |||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.4 | C1.6 | C1.11 | C1.5 | C1.7 | C2.7 | C2.1 | C2.5 | C3.5 | C3.3 | C3.1 | C4.6 | C4.8 | C4.7 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
DM17 | |||||||||||||||
Criteria (according to rank) | C1.4 | C1.5 | C1.7 | C1.6 | C1.11 | C2.7 | C2.1 | C2.5 | C3.5 | C3.1 | C3.3 | C4.8 | C4.6 | C4.7 | C4.9 |
Criteria comparisons | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
Experts | Criteria Groups | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | ||
Level 1 | |||||
DM1 | 0.1818 | 0.5455 | 0.0909 | 0.1818 | 0.00 |
DM2 | 0.1842 | 0.5526 | 0.0789 | 0.1842 | 0.00 |
DM3 | 0.3704 | 0.3704 | 0.0741 | 0.1852 | 0.00 |
DM4 | 0.1402 | 0.5607 | 0.1121 | 0.1869 | 0.00 |
DM5 | 0.1786 | 0.1786 | 0.1071 | 0.5357 | 0.00 |
Level 2 | |||||
DM6 | 0.3333 | 0.1667 | 0.3333 | 0.1667 | 0.00 |
DM7 | 0.2143 | 0.4286 | 0.1429 | 0.2143 | 0.00 |
DM8 | 0.6481 | 0.1296 | 0.0926 | 0.1296 | 0.00 |
DM9 | 0.1905 | 0.5714 | 0.0952 | 0.1429 | 0.00 |
DM10 | 0.6349 | 0.1587 | 0.0794 | 0.1270 | 0.00 |
DM11 | 0.5000 | 0.2500 | 0.0833 | 0.1667 | 0.00 |
Level 3 | |||||
DM12 | 0.4286 | 0.2143 | 0.1429 | 0.2143 | 0.00 |
DM13 | 0.6300 | 0.2100 | 0.0700 | 0.0900 | 0.00 |
DM14 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.1000 | 0.1000 | 0.00 |
DM15 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.1667 | 0.1667 | 0.00 |
DM16 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.1333 | 0.0667 | 0.00 |
DM17 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.1000 | 0.1000 | 0.00 |
Experts | Criteria | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1.1 | C1.4 | C1.5 | C2.4 | C2.5 | C2.7 | C3.1 | C3.2 | C3.4 | C4.2 | C4.4 | C4.5 | C4.9 | |
DM1 | 0.2941 | 0.5882 | 0.1176 | 0.3000 | 0.6000 | 0.1000 | 0.1379 | 0.1724 | 0.6897 | 0.4918 | 0.1639 | 0.0984 | 0.2459 |
DM2 | 0.6316 | 0.2105 | 0.1579 | 0.2500 | 0.2500 | 0.5000 | 0.2000 | 0.2000 | 0.6000 | 0.6704 | 0.1341 | 0.0838 | 0.1117 |
DM3 | 0.4444 | 0.4444 | 0.1111 | 0.2500 | 0.5000 | 0.2500 | 0.2941 | 0.5882 | 0.1176 | 0.5333 | 0.0667 | 0.1333 | 0.2667 |
DM4 | 0.6316 | 0.2105 | 0.1579 | 0.0870 | 0.6087 | 0.3043 | 0.7059 | 0.1765 | 0.1176 | 0.5902 | 0.0656 | 0.1967 | 0.1475 |
DM5 | 0.6316 | 0.2105 | 0.1579 | 0.1579 | 0.2105 | 0.6316 | 0.1579 | 0.2105 | 0.6316 | 0.1667 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.1667 |
Experts | Criteria | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1.2 | C1.3 | C1.8 | C1.9 | C1.10 | C1.11 | C2.1 | C2.2 | C2.3 | C2.6 | C2.7 | C3.1 | C3.2 | C3.4 | C4.1 | C4.2 | C4.3 | C4.9 | |
DM6 | 0.1724 | 0.0690 | 0.1724 | 0.3448 | 0.0690 | 0.1724 | 0.3243 | 0.3243 | 0.1081 | 0.0811 | 0.1622 | 0.4000 | 0.4000 | 0.2000 | 0.1667 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.1667 |
DM7 | 0.0741 | 0.0926 | 0.1852 | 0.3704 | 0.0926 | 0.1852 | 0.4000 | 0.1333 | 0.1333 | 0.1333 | 0.2000 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | 0.2857 | 0.2857 | 0.2857 | 0.1429 |
DM8 | 0.1442 | 0.0481 | 0.0865 | 0.4327 | 0.0721 | 0.2163 | 0.2298 | 0.4595 | 0.0919 | 0.1532 | 0.0656 | 0.5455 | 0.1818 | 0.2727 | 0.1448 | 0.5793 | 0.1931 | 0.0828 |
DM9 | 0.1549 | 0.0664 | 0.0664 | 0.4646 | 0.0929 | 0.1549 | 0.5283 | 0.1761 | 0.0881 | 0.0755 | 0.1321 | 0.1064 | 0.1489 | 0.7447 | 0.1931 | 0.1448 | 0.5793 | 0.0828 |
DM10 | 0.4208 | 0.0601 | 0.2104 | 0.1403 | 0.0842 | 0.0842 | 0.0785 | 0.1099 | 0.0785 | 0.1832 | 0.5497 | 0.1429 | 0.1429 | 0.7143 | 0.6667 | 0.0833 | 0.0833 | 0.1667 |
DM11 | 0.3593 | 0.0719 | 0.1796 | 0.1198 | 0.0898 | 0.1796 | 0.3750 | 0.1875 | 0.1250 | 0.1250 | 0.1875 | 0.2258 | 0.0968 | 0.6774 | 0.4545 | 0.2273 | 0.2273 | 0.0909 |
Experts | Criteria | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1.4 | C1.5 | C1.6 | C1.7 | C1.11 | C2.1 | C2.5 | C2.7 | C3.1 | C3.3 | C3.5 | C4.6 | C4.7 | C4.8 | C4.9 | |
DM12 | 0.4082 | 0.1020 | 0.2041 | 0.2041 | 0.0816 | 0.4000 | 0.2000 | 0.4000 | 0.2000 | 0.2000 | 0.6000 | 0.3636 | 0.1818 | 0.3636 | 0.0909 |
DM13 | 0.2459 | 0.0820 | 0.0984 | 0.4918 | 0.0820 | 0.2727 | 0.1818 | 0.5455 | 0.0943 | 0.1509 | 0.7547 | 0.6000 | 0.1000 | 0.2000 | 0.1000 |
DM14 | 0.2500 | 0.2500 | 0.1250 | 0.2500 | 0.1250 | 0.4000 | 0.2000 | 0.4000 | 0.2500 | 0.2500 | 0.5000 | 0.3000 | 0.3000 | 0.3000 | 0.1000 |
DM15 | 0.4000 | 0.2000 | 0.1000 | 0.2000 | 0.1000 | 0.4444 | 0.1111 | 0.4444 | 0.2000 | 0.2000 | 0.6000 | 0.3636 | 0.1818 | 0.3636 | 0.0909 |
DM16 | 0.3947 | 0.1316 | 0.1974 | 0.0789 | 0.1974 | 0.4286 | 0.1429 | 0.4286 | 0.1429 | 0.1429 | 0.7143 | 0.4000 | 0.1000 | 0.4000 | 0.1000 |
DM17 | 0.2308 | 0.2308 | 0.2308 | 0.2308 | 0.0769 | 0.4000 | 0.2000 | 0.4000 | 0.1111 | 0.1111 | 0.7778 | 0.4225 | 0.0845 | 0.4225 | 0.0704 |
Criteria Groups | Weight | Criteria | Local Weight | Global Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 0.2110 | Useful life (C1.1) | 0.5267 | 0.1111 |
Safety (C1.4) | 0.3329 | 0.0702 | ||
Comfort, Ergonomics (C1.5) | 0.1405 | 0.0296 | ||
C2 | 0.4416 | Open pit depth (C2.4) | 0.2090 | 0.0923 |
Production rate (C2.5) | 0.4338 | 0.1916 | ||
Required dump trucks fleet (C2.7) | 0.3572 | 0.1577 | ||
C3 | 0.0926 | Waste materials produced (C3.1) | 0.2992 | 0.0277 |
Air pollution (C3.2) | 0.2695 | 0.0250 | ||
Type and geometry of deposit (C3.4) | 0.4313 | 0.0400 | ||
C4 | 0.2548 | CAPEX (C4.2) | 0.4905 | 0.1250 |
Resale value (C4.4) | 0.1527 | 0.0389 | ||
Manufacture reputation (C4.5) | 0.1691 | 0.0431 | ||
Technological level (robotization, automation) (C4.9) | 0.1877 | 0.0478 |
Criteria Groups | Weight | Criteria | Local Weight | Global Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 0.4202 | Grade (C1.2) | 0.2210 | 0.0928 |
Net to Tare Ratio (C1.3) | 0.0680 | 0.0286 | ||
Minimum turning radius (C1.8) | 0.1501 | 0.0631 | ||
Payload capacity (C1.9) | 0.3121 | 0.1311 | ||
Dump truck tray type (C1.10) | 0.0834 | 0.0351 | ||
Dump truck width (C1.11) | 0.1654 | 0.0695 | ||
C2 | 0.2842 | Match with excavator and crusher (C2.1) | 0.3227 | 0.0917 |
Haul road width (C2.2) | 0.2318 | 0.0659 | ||
Payload Factor (C2.3) | 0.1042 | 0.0296 | ||
Haul Road Condition (C2.6) | 0.1252 | 0.0356 | ||
Required dump trucks fleet (C2.7) | 0.2162 | 0.0614 | ||
C3 | 0.1457 | Waste materials produced (C3.1) | 0.2923 | 0.0426 |
Air pollution (C3.2) | 0.2173 | 0.0317 | ||
Type and geometry of deposit (C3.4) | 0.4904 | 0.0715 | ||
C4 | 0.1499 | Availability (C4.1) | 0.3186 | 0.0478 |
CAPEX (C4.2) | 0.2756 | 0.0413 | ||
OPEX (C4.3) | 0.2837 | 0.0425 | ||
Technological level (robotization. automation) (C4.9) | 0.1221 | 0.0183 |
Criteria Groups | Weight | Criteria | Local Weight | Global Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 0.4319 | Safety (C1.4) | 0.32160 | 0.13892 |
Comfort. Ergonomics (C1.5) | 0.16606 | 0.07174 | ||
Ease of maintenance (C1.6) | 0.15926 | 0.06880 | ||
Dump truck controllability (C1.7) | 0.24260 | 0.10480 | ||
Dump truck width (C1.11) | 0.11048 | 0.04773 | ||
C2 | 0.3262 | Match with excavator and crusher (C2.1) | 0.39096 | 0.12756 |
Haul Road Condition (C2.6) | 0.17263 | 0.05632 | ||
Required dump trucks fleet (C2.7) | 0.43641 | 0.14239 | ||
C3 | 0.1181 | Air pollution (C3.2) | 0.16638 | 0.01977 |
Noisy (C3.3) | 0.17582 | 0.02089 | ||
Climatic zone match (C3.5) | 0.65780 | 0.07815 | ||
C4 | 0.1229 | Reliability (C4.6) | 0.40830 | 0.05020 |
Back-up service (Support) (C4.7) | 0.15802 | 0.01943 | ||
Labor skill (C4.8) | 0.34163 | 0.04200 | ||
Technological level (robotization. automation) (C4.9) | 0.09204 | 0.01132 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rakhmangulov, A.; Burmistrov, K.; Osintsev, N. Multi-Criteria System’s Design Methodology for Selecting Open Pits Dump Trucks. Sustainability 2024, 16, 863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020863
Rakhmangulov A, Burmistrov K, Osintsev N. Multi-Criteria System’s Design Methodology for Selecting Open Pits Dump Trucks. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020863
Chicago/Turabian StyleRakhmangulov, Aleksandr, Konstantin Burmistrov, and Nikita Osintsev. 2024. "Multi-Criteria System’s Design Methodology for Selecting Open Pits Dump Trucks" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020863